dark light

stuart gowans

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 1,486 through 1,500 (of 1,986 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Replica MkVIII Spitfire and a Meteor engine #1318159
    stuart gowans
    Participant

    Graham, in all seriousness, running it with the wings off could be a bit dangerous, especially with a 2 blade prop, which, on low rpm produces an irregular torque action; the carb is going to stick out the top cowling, if you mount the engine in the correct position ,but if you don’t the exhausts wont line up with the cowlings.

    in reply to: Aviation Archeology UK Still Alive? (2007 Zombie) #1319280
    stuart gowans
    Participant

    Very interesting Nick! This is not to belittle BAAC in any way, but I do think an organisation with more bite and clout is needed. I am not sure how seriously the MOD take BAAC, but from what I have seen I suspect not very. I am not advocating a confrontational stance, but certainly a very robust one that keeps on the pressure when needed, seeks clarity on policy matters and has an input that is taken seriously by the Ministry. It may be a tough nut to crack, but it needs a body that is taken seriously and listened to, and one that can have a positive input to officialdom as far as the MOD are concerned.

    As to the farmer who seems to have carried out an illegal dig, well, if the MOD are to be seen to be impartial then they should act. I suspect they will always shrink from prosecuting a landowner from digging a hole in his own land though!

    Andy Saunders

    If a man has a right to dig a hole in his back garden, then that right is extended as far as his boundaries.

    Nick and I have discussed some of these issues before, but just to reiterate, much of the farm land in england, is in the same family ownership as it was during the war,when these A/C “went in ” who made good the damage to the land at the time? my understanding is that it was left to the farmer to tidy up his field (the RAF being concerned with the recovery of bodies and major wreckage).

    The problem for the MOD ,is that in these days of enviromental accountability,a case could be made for the Mod to remove their property from any given field, as contamination is causing harm tothe water table or the crops grown above; the MOD won’t want this, because all the oil and petrol and radioactivety associated with a crash site would necessitate a very thorough clean up(for thorough read expensive).

    Some land owners with an eye on the future, might want to sell land for housing, and would welcome just such a clean up (funded by the MOD).

    Another way of looking at the scenario of a land owner “digging up” something he shouldn’t is, “imagine all the people” (with acknowledgements to J Lennon!) that go a wandering on private land, armed with a spade and a £5 metal detector digging holes and leaving them like that (I’ve had it) ; when there’s a plane buried in a field everyone knows about it, a landowner, tired of having his fields dug up ,might take it apon him self to remove said A/C so that the digging stops ,(a similiar situation to a landowner demolishing a building on his land, which acts as a magnate for all and sundry.

    in reply to: ebay #1320168
    stuart gowans
    Participant

    Depends on how you read it. You could see it as making sure there’s a level playing field for traders. If you are a legitimate trader and you are up against a bloke selling the same stuff useing e-Bay to sell the same volume as you without paying tax, you’d be right to feel aggrieved. The way I read it the IR might look at a threshold figure for people who are using e-Bay in this way, and stop them ducking their tax obligations and preventing them from having an unfair advantage in the marketplace.

    In much the same way as someone claiming unemployement benefit and trading ,can under cut someone else “doing it legit”, but I dont think the inland revenue are too bothered about level playing fields, they just want yer money!

    I notice from the 1st of March, there will be VAT on sellers accounts @15%, as ebay has opened a branch in the EU (Luxembourg).

    stuart gowans
    Participant

    When I was dealing with them in 2003, I was told that this was going to be a replica of the prototype, I believe they have now changed tack, and it is going to be a mk1.

    in reply to: ebay #1320968
    stuart gowans
    Participant

    In conventional auctions “running up” your own item is a generally accepted way of controlling the final price that your item makes; many dealers prefer that to setting a reserve ,as they are inflexible, and depending on the mood of the day , something that is reserved a say £1000- might only get to £975- , the seller might choose to take £25- less, whereas I believe on ebay although you can lower the reserve price, there is a time limit on that,i.e not during the last few hours, which ironically is when all the action takes place.

    The golden rule is don’t get carried away bidding, there will always be another one come along, and another after that, etc; I buy as much as I sell on ebay (although not the same things ,OBVIOUSLY!), when selling I put an item on with a starting price, which is the absolute minimum I will take, and when buying, I put I bid on (as late as possible by analogue methods) with the top price that I am prepared to pay.

    What it comes down to is knowing how to value a specific item, and that comes from years of getting it wrong (a form of apprenticeship with an NVQ at the end of your time served).

    NVQ , Not Very Qualified…

    in reply to: Something Luftwaffe i've been working on… #1323651
    stuart gowans
    Participant

    If it is at legends, I’ll put some bullet holes in it for you; I’ll bring me cordless….

    in reply to: Difference between Restoration / Repro. / Replica ? #1324016
    stuart gowans
    Participant

    In my view, something that starts off with a data plate and some original structure, or fittings, but ultimately is rebuilt incorporating only a small percentage of “original” parts (that can be linked with the data plate), is, no more a rebuild than something that starts off as a new build, but aquires an “identity” at a later stage.

    For me the term reproduction has been degraded by cheap furniture that has nothing to do with the original piece, other than it bears a passing resemblance ;the quality of wood, and the types of joints utilised are a far cry from the original; also the abbreviation of reproduction to “repro”, seems an intentional slur on which it describes, you don’t hear original abbreviated to “orig” or genuine to “gen”.

    in reply to: Difference between Restoration / Repro. / Replica ? #1324857
    stuart gowans
    Participant

    The only draw back to the plan, is that you have to finish it, or else it’s then an “unfinished project” when advertised for sale!

    in reply to: Difference between Restoration / Repro. / Replica ? #1325005
    stuart gowans
    Participant

    Always a bit sensitive on what to class our Spit project..Will have to change our webpage header I know.Is reproduction the one to go with?Yes we are also making a mess as well:rolleyes: …:o

    How about calling it a “spitfire project”, and then after it’s finished, wait and see what everone else says about it;…. works for me.

    in reply to: Difference between Restoration / Repro. / Replica ? #1325033
    stuart gowans
    Participant

    If you were selling something as a replica or reproduction, and you used parts or items that weren’t new (i.e original), surely you would fall foul of the trade descriptions act, as these parts aren’t replicated or reproduced; if you were selling it on ebay you would have to list it as “used”.

    in reply to: Difference between Restoration / Repro. / Replica ? #1325224
    stuart gowans
    Participant

    Just out of curiosity, how many people have ever replaced the head of an axe? I put a handle on one 20 years ago and used it every day for 10 years, now I don’t know where it is!

    in reply to: Most bizarre use of the phrase "like a WW1 biplane"? #1326360
    stuart gowans
    Participant

    Article says “animal” was a glider, so presumably not a candidate for earliest powered flight ; you might have thought that if insufficient lift was the problem, rather than fashion its legs into a crude lower wing, it might have tried flapping the ones it already had.

    in reply to: RAF Vehicle ID #1326744
    stuart gowans
    Participant

    I think I can make out a diff housing on the front axle, in my opinion that makes it a Militant; cabs on AEC are largely irrelevant, it is the chassis layout that dictates the name given; many post war AEC’s had cabs built by Park Royal (well known coach builders) the Mamoth I had was a Park Royal cabbed version, but still a Mamoth.

    Most of the Matadors that I have seen have an “eyebrow” shape to the top of the cab (above the windscreen), this doesn’t,;most of the crane versions that I have seen, have been the 6×6 Militant.

    in reply to: RAF Vehicle ID #1326934
    stuart gowans
    Participant

    The AEC is either a Militant (6×6) or a Mamoth (6×4) or possibly a Mandator.

    in reply to: Hangar Damage #1331268
    stuart gowans
    Participant

    Its worth throwing a rope over over the leading edge of a roof ,(either prior to, or during a storm); I’ve got one over the roof of my house at the moment thats been there for a couple of months.

    I had a building destroyed christmas 1990 (thanks god!) and spent boxing day onwards putting it back up, after that I used to park a digger next to it and lower the bucket (gently) onto the roof; I’d often get up a 2am and go and start the digger up to do this when the wind got up.

    Who said eccentric…

Viewing 15 posts - 1,486 through 1,500 (of 1,986 total)